As nearly every Bible translation points out in the footnotes, the passage in John 8 about the woman caught in adultery isn’t found in the earliest manuscripts. Therefore, it may not have been in the original writings of the Bible.*
It is a memorable passage and doesn’t contradict other doctrines, but neither does it add anything that isn’t taught elsewhere. The problems start when people twist the passage to say things that aren’t there. Here’s the text:
The Woman Caught in Adultery — John 8:2 – 11
Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her,”Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
If someone drew the conclusion that Jesus was once again clever and outwitted the Pharisees who were trying to trap him, that would be fine. Or that He upheld the law on capital punishment (you must have two witnesses). Or that He outed their hypocrisy in not bringing the man. Those would all be good.
The main misuse of the passage is by those who exclaim, “He who is without sin can cast the first stone!,” when trying to shut up anyone making a judgment they disagree with. But as you may have noticed, that objection is self-refuting and ironically hypocritical: They imply that all judging is wrong, but they are judging you for judging. But there is more.
Jesus was referring to real stones that would kill the person. Real stones thrown at a real person until he or she was really dead. Criticizing someone else hardly rises to the level of killing him by stoning. Flippantly equating death by stoning with mere criticism is beyond hyperbole.
And even if Jesus said the part about not casting the first stone, it wouldn’t have meant, “Never say adultery is wrong!” Note that the passage also says, “Go and sin no more.”
Those advocating the “judging = casting stones” view typically make all sorts of judgments, including advocating hate speech / hate crime laws. But shouldn’t they be consistent and not judge anyone for anything, ever?
The passage is also misused to oppose capital punishment in principle. But again, Jesus upheld the law: If there had been two witnesses present, stoning would have been appropriate at that time.
Keep in mind that any criticisms of this post will be considered stone-casting on your part. And you know how wrong that is!
* Skeptics like Bart Ehrman like to say that this passage and the “long ending” of the Gospel of Mark reduce our confidence that the original writings were the word of God, but they are really proof that the system works. Based on the work of textual critics on literally thousands of ancient manuscripts, we can be very confident about what the original writings said.